On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:54:48PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > I do think it's about AUTOSEL, because when I'm dealing with a > regression, I want to get it fixed fast. Because the alternative is > the merge-window commit getting reverted. AUTOSEL seems wants perfect > patches that it can cherry pick once, as opposed to a case where if the > user confirms that it fixes the regression, I want to send it to Linus > quickly. I do *not* want it to marinate in linux-next for 1-2 weeks. > I would much rather that *stable* hold off on picking up the patch for > 1-2 weeks, but get it fixed in Linux HEAD sooner. If that means that > the regression fix needs a further clean up, so be it.
We've had issues with the automated testing systems in the past where a maintainer has had a policy of letting things percoltate for a week before sending to Linus and there's been a bug that caused a substantial set of tests to fail to run (generally it's something that had unnoticed dependencies in -next so wasn't caught there) - we essentially end up not getting the affected bits of test coverage for that period of time which is not helpful.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
